Hallo, Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote: > > But then it cannot be distributed commercially freely by anyone. It > > cannot be sold if you don't get a special permission to do so. So > > actually the license doesn't give the user the full rights. > > What you seem to be saying is that user freedom is more important than > artist freedom. I am not. You seem to misunderstand me. > Why should an artist be compelled to to grant rights to users? Free > software, or culture, is a gift - it's not something that users can > demand. Yes, free software and free music is a gift. The non-commercial CC license makes it a gift with a catch, or actually it makes it not a gift at all in some sense. (One could argue, that GPL-free also has a catch, by disallowing to take the gift away) That's all what I'm saying. I'm not demanding musicians or software authors to do anything or give me anything. I also don't (want to) agitate against non-commercial licenses. But "non-commercial use or distribution only" means non-free, that's all that I'm saying. And personally I don't like the close neighbourhood of a non-free license to the free licenses within the CC license bunch, because it gives the impression, that "non-commercial use/dist. only" still means free, when in fact it doesn't, it just means "sometimes yes, sometimes not". ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
